Diet restriction is the most fucked up thing you can do to yourself, for any number of time. Especially while you are under an exercise program. If you're only taking in 1600 calories a day, regulated restrictions throughout your day, and you burn 500, or more of those calories in a day. That's just over 1000 calories a day. Are you kidding me? It constricts the size of your stomach.

If you restrict calories for any number of time, and boost your calories from 1600, to 2200, it's going to take you a good 2 weeks, to a month to up that calorie intake. Now, tell me how that does not harm your body? How are the muscles, acids, and tissue particles inside your body not harmed by this? Are you daft? Your body is going under distress, and it's fucking you up. That's why most people who restrict calories can't stick with it for more than a year. You aren't consuming enough carbs, and nutrients. That's why you see most of them bloat up like fucking whales. Eating chips, bread, baked products. Which not only include carbs, but fats, oils, and whatever other things they stuff into it. Now, sing me this; How exactly is 30 bananas a day unhealthy?

Bananas contain proteins, carbs, vitamins, water, and jacked up with calories. 100 - 200 per serving. How is this unhealthy? You eat 30 bananas a day, some watermelon, some rice: Fruits, veggies, grains, beans. And about 2 quarts of water every day, more or less. How is this unhealthy? Are you bullshitting me, right now? I swear, I don't comment very often against controversial topics, but this has just gone too far. You're being force-fed bullshit, and you're chugging it down like it's water. It's unbelievably soundless, and feeble. And how do you know none of things which you stated aren't true.

Are you in her life personally? Taking someone up on their whole-hearted truth is possibly one of the worst things you could do without factual evidence to support it. And you have none. And so does no one else.

And let's see; what else. Oh- bullying. Harley is a very up-spoken person, who states his opinion as he sees it, yes, it can be harsh. But I think 'harsh', is what a lot of people need. When you go as far to bullshit people, with your little dietary plans, and calorie restrictors. It is always open for criticism , and there are thousands of different plans, books, and people out there just like her. She rebuilt the stone, for the millionth time in history. "Hooray?"

And doctors? Are you kidding me? Hundreds of doctors get it wrong every day, whether they tell you you're going to die in a month, and you're still living a year later! Holy shit! What a concept. Drug companies, and the healthcare industry is pumping billions of dollars a year into this bullshit, you know why? Because they want you to be fucked up. They want you to be confused. Money talks; bullshit walks. And this is bullshit. With their pills, and surgeries.

Do you know what they told my father, when he had a cholesterol level of over 300? They told him to take pills, and he asked, "Well, is this something I can do on my own?" And the doctor said "No." Bullshit! He went home, took it down to under 160, in under 4 months. And do you know what that doctor did the next day, after seeing those results? He promoted, and pushed that drug on other fucking people! Because that's what he's paid to do. They don't want you to get better. They want to keep you sick, and dying.

If the 'doctors';quote-un-quote, had it right; than why are there 500,000 people dying from heart disease in America every year. Why is nearly 40% of America obese? If the 'doctors', were so right. Than why they spitting bullshit into our faces? And guess who's helping them push it along? You are. And all the bullshitters that you think are telling the God's-to-honest-truth. All those politicians, dieticians, and smooth-talkers. Yeah. They're being real honest with the public. Fucking bullshit. If that Kayla-chick was right, than why are 500,000 Americans dying every year, from a 'disease', that doesn't have to happen? That is reversible.

Dietary, and calorie restrictions have been going on for the past century. The things that she's saying is nothing new, they use to say meat was good for you in moderation, chicken, and dairy products. What do we know, now? That it's fucking bullshit. 500,000 Americans a year are fucking dying from it. And you're telling me that it's 'healthy'? Are you fucking insane. Oh, oh. But only in 'moderation'. For fuck's sake. If it isn't healthy in large quantities, than why in the fuck would it be healthy in moderation?! If you drink acid, and it doesn't do any remarkable damage, that you can feel, than "OH. It must be healthy!" But you chug the whole fucking bottle, and fucking die. What's the fucking difference?! They use to say drinking olive oil was good for you in the 50's - 80's, and I suppose they still think that.

I dare you to go drink olive oil for a month, and tell me how good you feel. Go check with a doctor, and he'll tell you how fucked up you are from drinking it. They put oil in almost every product that they sell in grocery stores, "But, oh. It's healthy in moderation." What the fuck does that even mean?! If you want real truth, look up Dr. McDougall, look up Frank Medrano, look at Durianrider, and Freelee. Fucking vegans, and healthier than 90% of Americans, and 95% of the Western-fucking-world!

I say, fuck no. Let Durianrider talk all he wants. Freedom of speech. I hope that this kind of thing would never happen in America. Keep doing what you're doing, Durianrider. Speak the damn truth! What 95%, or more of Americans can't bare to hear. Sheep led to slaughter. While the rich, and powerful heard us. It's all about money. Nothing more. Nothing less. Money. This was not a case of slander. This was about bullshit-talkers, who felt threatened by processes that proved more knowledgeable than their own. What are the long-term affects of calorie restrictions? Do you know? Of course not. Dr. Esselstyn studied over 200, now 1,000 people going by the same lively-hood that Durianrider, and Freelee are taking. Pure vegans. Fruits, veggies, grains, and beans. They're all living up to their 80's, 90's, and 100's. Of a process over 20 years in the making. There's no science, or doctors to back up how Durianrider lives? If it was unhealthy, they wouldn't be able to do things that they are able to do. Frank Medrano wouldn't be able to do things he's able to do. Are you kidding me? Zero credentials.

Where are you receiving your information? Dr. Esselstyn. Dr. McDougall. Durianrider. Freelee. Myself. My father. My mother. And, hey. Guess what? 80% of the rest of the world. What do you think 80% of the world lives on? Africans are going to go out every day, slaughter a buffalo, and eat it? There would be no buffalo left to have. They live on fruits, veggies, grains, and beans. China, Japan, India, the mid-East. You call those people unhealthy? Sometimes there isn't food to go around, because there's too much people in one area. That's due to malnutrition, and 'calorie-restrictions'. Because they can't get the food that they need.

Japanese women are the most healthiest, most long-lived people in the world, in all of history. Meat is a recent thing that they've started eating in the past century, and you know what happened? Their heart-disease skyrocketed from 1%, to nearly 30%. They were a country of pure organic products. Fish was/is a once-in-an-occurrence meal. Do you know who introduced the Japanese to salads? Dr. Esselstyn, in the 40's. Most Japanese eat at least 2 salads a day, still today. And that's a fact. Did you know some doctors are paid by drug companies to promote their products to patients? Some drugs that are still in testing.

The world of medicine is corrupted by greed. Just like every other crack in the world of our society. And has been since the beginning of man. Corruption isn't new. Diets aren't new. Calories aren't new. So don't act like they are. Because there are a lot of short-minded, short-term-memory people out there, who can't remember one day, from the next. If I can't fully believe what the news tells me, then why in the world would I believe some chick who has rebuilt the wheel for the millionth time, since the mid-1900's? And where has it brought us?

Japan, the healthiest country in history. Has a heart-disease level of 30%. Who's that to blame for? The Japanese have been eating the same meals, for the past 3,000 years. And you're telling me they're unhealthy? They have been under-nourished for the past 3,000 years? And the Chinese people, who migrated into Japan, have been under-nourished for the past 5,000 years? And longer? 10,000 years? Are you kidding me? Right. And now they're starting to get the nutrition that they actually need, right? An over-excessive amount of beef, pork, and chicken-nuggets. Right? Right. One of the first human beings in the history of the world, that gave birth to current civilization. Has been malnourished for the past 50,000 years. And up until the 20th - 21st century, they're actually starting to get the nourishment that they need from meat, and animal by-products. Right.

That's why meat, and animal by-products are killing us. Because it's good for us. If you die, it's because you did it right. If you're some fat-fuck, that weighs half a ton, and you die at the ripe old age of 30. You did it right. Good job, you achieved life. You lived life to the fullest, and had a healthy lifestyle. You got to be kidding me. But that's up to the individual who lives that life, I have no quarrel with that. If you choose to live that way. But if you're looking to improve yourself. But take no effort, and no action to do so, but still bitch that your lifestyle, like you're expecting someone to hand it to you. If you're not expecting to improve, than don't act like someone owes it to you.

I'm a vegan calisthenics exerciser. And this is from personal experience. I work out 1 - 2 hours every other day, running 4mi. every other opposite day, with about a 30min time. And you're telling me I'm unhealthy?

This is ridiculously, almost common-sense. I can't believe how simple it is, yet people still don't get it.

I am not sorry for this rant, for any reason. I hope people learn from it.

Guys with showing six packs are grossly unhealthy. The six pack is just a muscle (well group). Men who have them and aren't on some strict nutritionist's guide are really hurting themselves. The body has a certain range of body fat that it likes to operate at so, showing six packs are more like naked tombstones of muscles jutting up from the soil that was once one's body.

That's right, it's pure vanity. It's for women (or gay men) to ogle over, and create an unhealthy attractiveness standard for men to live up to. Sorry, saw the last guy in the vid and thought how unhealthy that was.

Shoot, all I did was cut out soda, saved cakes and crap for the weekends, and practiced more portion control. The things you're saying people can't apparently do (though to be fair the rant lives up to its name, so it's hard to tell where you're actually coming from in any given sentence). I hardly find the vegan life-style that healthy for a group who evolved from opportunistic scavenging omnivores, but over-consumption is quite the problem. No one needs a Big Mac every day of their life and they probably should get out and walk more.

I'd rather stay a healthy omnivore (and look like Nigella) than become vegan (and look like the vegan lady).

Lol. That old lady doesn't look that way from being vegan. You get that way from being an excessive drug-abuser, and/or carnivore. Meat depresses the bodies natural ability to produce oils that take care of your skin. An Esselstyn lifestyle increases it. Dr. Esselstyn doesn't call it 'vegan', it's just a healthy lifestyle. Veganism is such a vague word.

Also, I sincerely doubt meat depresses the body's ability to produce oils since all oils in the human body are formed by proteins, which are found in meat (not saying you can't get it other ways), but that's sort of like saying you can't eat a lot of calcium or vitamin D because it depresses the body's ability to make bones.

But honestly, the whole thing of human nutrition is a ping pong game. I could bring up no less than ten articles about how vegetable and soybean oils are terrible for you. So I tend to not buy into exclusivity diets.

Like for instance, unless you actually have a gluten allergy, gluten-free is a load of fluff.

Guys with showing six packs are grossly unhealthy. The six pack is just a muscle (well group). Men who have them and aren't on some strict nutritionist's guide are really hurting themselves. The body has a certain range of body fat that it likes to operate at so, showing six packs are more like naked tombstones of muscles jutting up from the soil that was once one's body.

That's right, it's pure vanity. It's for women (or gay men) to ogle over, and create an unhealthy attractiveness standard for men to live up to. Sorry, saw the last guy in the vid and thought how unhealthy that was.

Shoot, all I did was cut out soda, saved cakes and crap for the weekends, and practiced more portion control. The things you're saying people can't apparently do (though to be fair the rant lives up to its name, so it's hard to tell where you're actually coming from in any given sentence). I hardly find the vegan life-style that healthy for a group who evolved from opportunistic scavenging omnivores, but over-consumption is quite the problem. No one needs a Big Mac every day of their life and they probably should get out and walk more.

I have never heard that scientifically stated, before. But I think I would have to disagree. Yes, it is unhealthy to keep that look for an extended amount of time, but it's purely ever for show. Contests, and looks. It's known as 'cutting', back on carbs, to thin out the outer skin, to expose the definition in the muscles. So, yes it is very unhealthy. And under 6% body fat should be the minimum at which the body runs. But to get that amount of muscle, on a pure vegan, non-enhanced diet is purely safe. Humans have been doing it for tens-of-thousands, of years.

And, no. I would like to disagree with that, as well. We were never omnivores. sub-humans have sustained themselves on a purely vegan diet, for tens-of-thousands, of years before the invention of fire. And even after the invention of fire, for tens-of-thousands of years, we have conserved our moderation in animal consumption to a complete minimum. Possibly once, to twice a month they would treat themselves to something from an animal.

Eating animals, and animal by-products is a recent thing for Japan, in the past century, or two, when Westerners transported their goods through the Asian sea. And the Japanese, for thousands of years, were malnourished from a lack of meat? Until the Europeans came along. And fish meat doesn't contain the same properties as land animals. And even while eating fish, they did it in very low moderation. Maybe half, to a quarter fish once, twice, or three times a week. Their main diet was grain, beans, fruit, and veggies. Just like the rest of the world, for the better part of 50,000 years.

If we can't eat animal, and animal by-products in large quantities, than why would it be safe in low moderation? If you smoke a cigarette once a week, for the next 20 years. What do you think will happen? Moderation doesn't mean anything. It's just a gimmick.

Also, I sincerely doubt meat depresses the body's ability to produce oils since all oils in the human body are formed by proteins, which are found in meat (not saying you can't get it other ways), but that's sort of like saying you can't eat a lot of calcium or vitamin D because it depresses the body's ability to make bones.

But honestly, the whole thing of human nutrition is a ping pong game. I could bring up no less than ten articles about how vegetable and soybean oils are terrible for you. So I tend to not buy into exclusivity diets.

Like for instance, unless you actually have a gluten allergy, gluten-free is a load of fluff.

I agree that gluten-free is a scam.

And, I suppose I apologize for the definition of the word 'vegan', I had no other way to describe it.

The fatty acids found within meat, isolates the bodies ability to break down it's natural proteins. While you will receive the animal by-products through consumption, it isn't directly found to help produce those oils.

And I don't understand why they need to make every food item with any type of oil. Almost every food product in a grocery has oil in it. Why? It doesn't help the taste, I suppose it would help the process of making the product. But it does nothing for you. In the early 1900's, through mid-1900's, it use to be lard, until they found out what lard does to you. If you can't drink oil in large quantities, than why have it at all?

I have never heard that scientifically stated, before. But I think I would have to disagree. Yes, it is unhealthy to keep that look for an extended amount of time, but it's purely ever for show. Contests, and looks. It's known as 'cutting', back on carbs, to thin out the outer skin, to expose the definition in the muscles. So, yes it is very unhealthy. And under 6% body fat should be the minimum at which the body runs. But to get that amount of muscle, on a pure vegan, non-enhanced diet is purely safe. Humans have been doing it for tens-of-thousands, of years.

And, no. I would like to disagree with that, as well. We were never omnivores. sub-humans have sustained themselves on a purely vegan diet, for tens-of-thousands, of years before the invention of fire. And even after the invention of fire, for tens-of-thousands of years, we have conserved our moderation in animal consumption to a complete minimum. Possibly once, to twice a month they would treat themselves to something from an animal.

Eating animals, and animal by-products is a recent thing for Japan, in the past century, or two, when Westerners transported their goods through the Asian sea. And the Japanese, for thousands of years, were malnourished from a lack of meat? Until the Europeans came along. And fish meat doesn't contain the same properties as land animals. And even while eating fish, they did it in very low moderation. Maybe half, to a quarter fish once, twice, or three times a week. Their main diet was grain, beans, fruit, and veggies. Just like the rest of the world, for the better part of 50,000 years.

If we can't eat animal, and animal by-products in large quantities, than why would it be safe in low moderation? If you smoke a cigarette once a week, for the next 20 years. What do you think will happen? Moderation doesn't mean anything. It's just a gimmick.

If one looks at human teeth, vs. crocodile/shark teeth and cows/deer teeth, humans have teeth for both tearing meat (incisors and canine teeth) and molars (for grinding/mashing). This is an omnivore trait. If we were not, we would not have sharp teeth as they are not needed for processing plants, as well as the anatomical fact we only have one stomach, where herbivores have multiple stomachs (all ruminants/herbivores do) and humans do not.

Iron as found in red meat cannot be adequately supplemented by vitamin pills or plant sources, as well as the need for calcium supplements from lack of Vitamin D in the diet from lack of dairy. There are several other mineral deficiencies that only come about from not eating meat sources (magnesium, phosphorus, manganese, etc.)

I'm sorry, but this is a biological fact, one that I have seen backed up time and again in the medical profession in which I work.

That thing about Japan couldn't be more erroneous if you tried. I'm sorry to state that the only meat the Western world brought to Japan was beef. Japan has had chicken and pork as far back as clan Yamamoto. It's in all manner of historical records.

Also, when one thinks of Japan of what do they think? That's right sushi sushi is an ancient way of preserving fish, and no, the first sushi was not a way to make rice taste better. They used to soak the rice in alcohol or vinegar and wrap it in nori (the seaweed wrapping). This would ferment the fish and the Japanese would take the rice and nori off and eat the fermented fish.

So, no, I don't think that meat is something humans weren't meant to eat. I don't think that humanity suddenly decided it want to eat meat by sheer force of will, and I'd also like to point out that various other human sub-species also consisted entirely upon meat. It's probably the interbreeding of the various sub-species that lead to our current omnivorial state.

Now, you won't here me saying that modern man doesn't move enough and probably eats way too much meat, but the idea that we're somehow herbivores who managed to diversify totally into meat-eating just cause is ludicrous. Nope, the sad fact is not even Homo Sapiens Sapiens was on the top of his food-chain, we were often opportunistic indiscriminant feeders. We were just as likely to eat a berry as yank the spider off the berry bush.

In point of fact, there are some that blame the whole ecological crisis on humanity's agricultural revolution (when we started climbing to the top of our food web). That's right they blame vegetable and grain eating for destroying the world. I don't believe that personally, but I do believe our dietary flexibility put us on top.

Humans didn't start eating meat when they discovered fire. Before that they ate it raw. I've heard scientists suspect that was what our appendix was for. Anything on ancient man I've watched or read suggested man ate meat whenever they could get it. There's a fatty acid only found in animal protein that we need.

If one looks at human teeth, vs. crocodile/shark teeth and cows/deer teeth, humans have teeth for both tearing meat (incisors and canine teeth) and molars (for grinding/mashing). This is an omnivore trait. If we were not, we would not have sharp teeth as they are not needed for processing plants, as well as the anatomical fact we only have one stomach, where herbivores have multiple stomachs (all ruminants/herbivores do) and humans do not.

Iron as found in red meat cannot be adequately supplemented by vitamin pills or plant sources, as well as the need for calcium supplements from lack of Vitamin D in the diet from lack of dairy. There are several other mineral deficiencies that only come about from not eating meat sources (magnesium, phosphorus, manganese, etc.)

I'm sorry, but this is a biological fact, one that I have seen backed up time and again in the medical profession in which I work.

Everything that is found in meat, comes from grain, and vegetables. What the animals consume, is digested into the animals body. That's why grass-fed cow, taste better than one from a factory. Why is that?

So, you're saying. The Japanese, who have lived on the island of Japan, for the past 5,000 years. Have been malnourished? For the better part of 5,000 years, the Japanese people haven't gotten the foods that are needed to survive; meat? The most healthiest nation in history, who had a death-rate of around age 80 - 100. Most women living into their low 100's. The most healthiest women in the world, living at average of 101. Has been malnourished, for over 5,000 years? The island of Japan has no indigenous animals, that were consumed by the Japanese people. They ate grain, beans, fruits, and veggies. And once in a while a fish, for over 5,000 years. The most healthiest people in the world, is malnourished, because they don't eat meat. Well, most of them, today.

Ever since the beginning of the 20th century, their heart disease has been growing. And since the end of 21st century, it skyrocketed. That isn't due to meat, and animal by-products?

According to evolutionary science, our kin is the ape/monkey. Who also processes K9's, but they are used as defensive instruments. The ape, our genetic kin, only eats veggies, and fruit. Evolution, and all it's laziness, why would it give us the ability to eat, consume, and break down meat? For what purpose? An ape, who is two times bigger than the average man, and two, three, four times stronger than the average man doesn't need meat to survive, but evolution saw fit to give us the ability to break it down? An ape, who uses 5x more energy than the average, fit man, as big as one is. In a single day, doesn't need meat, but we do?

Why does meat make us sickly, provoke cancer, and bring out diseases? It breaks down our immune system, and corrodes the arteries. Why is that? If it can't be consumed in large quantities, than how can it be consumed, at all. If we can't be pure carnivores, than how can we eat it all. Every omnivore, in the history of Earth, has had the ability to either live on meat, or everything else. It adapts to a changing environment, in which it lives. A bear, for example, able to eat anything for fish, fruits, and vegetables, for any extended of time. Bears can live on nothing but fruits, and vegetables, until it dies. The same with meat, and there will be no differentiation between the two lives.

But we have to limit it to a moderation? A man. Who admits to being an omnivore, can't sustain a pure meat, and animal by-product diet for more than, what? 20, 30 years? Less? 15? But we have to limit it to a moderation? Why is that? Why can an animal, an omnivore, and any omnivore can do this. Can live on any type of diet, for an extended amount of time. And die without many health problems. But, man. Can only live a maximum of, maybe 20 years on a pure animal, and by-product diet? The average age for the male human is 76 years.

Look at any omnivore, or carnivore. They're predators. They have claws, sharp teeth, strength. Humans have none of that. Try wrestling an elk, and see how it works out. Lol. We can barely bite off a slice of steak with our bare teeth, let alone a piece of hide from an animal. We need tools to kill, and butcher an animal. Have you tried biting into a piece of meat with your teeth? I have. The majority of the action isn't coming from your K9's, but the friction of your Central Incisors.

And biologically? Dr. Esselstyn is the top Biochemist in the world. And he's the creator, and promoter of his very own plan. A top surgeon, scientist: biochemist, and doctor in his respected field.

Go back, and watch his video; seminar, on his healthy-living, and conditioning. The second video, I believe. The man is 81 years old, and he looks healthier than a horse. No meat, by-products, oils, candy. Pure organic, for the better part of 30 years. He looks better, and more healthier than most of the people I go to school with. The skinny people, who 'look', healthy. But their faces show it. Sickly, and tired. You know I was on the omnivore diet, up until the middle of my 19th Birthday. A year later.

I did my calisthenics workout, and ran, while I was still eating steaks, and pork. I got ripped, during the good part of about 5 months.

Talking here, today. Working out for the past month. I have never felt better. My dad had, sort-of convinced me. It was always kind of common-since for me. I just never gave it much thought.

From the ages 1-5, I hated meat. I refused to eat it. It enjoyed vegetables, and fruit. And I believe that children are closer to their inner-being, than anyone else. Spiritually, and thoughtfully. We were not made to eat meat. And I truly believe that.

We have been force-fed lies about what is actually good for us to eat. Just like we have been lied to ever since the beginning of man. Why reform a multi-billion dollar industry, just so that people can live a healthy lifestyle? The healthcare, food, and dietary society isn't, and will never tell you the truth about dietary restrictions. Because they're making billions of dollars from it. Hundreds, of billions, of dollars. And I'm not going to support them. They're getting rich on a sham, a scam, unfounded research, with no ground. And any research that they had made, was marked over. They don't want you to know the truth. Even, then. It might not even matter. 99% of those who eat their products, are addicted.

Look at the French, when Germany had occupied their country, they took away all their cattle. They had to live on organic products for the entire occupation of their country, 5 years. Their heart-disease, and heart attacks decreased drastically.

So, a food that we're meant to eat, but is addicting to the human body? Meat is a very product. Ask anyone, ask them to survive without meat for a month, and see what they say, or do. Most people wouldn't try it. 99% of those people who tried, would quit. So, meat. That we're designed to eat. Is addicting to the human condition. If you can't unhook yourself, from something that you're consuming into your body; than how could it be good for you? Something's wrong with that.

After Germany's occupation of France, the French got their cattle back, and their heart-disease, and heart attacks skyrocketed, by at least 30% in less than a year. This wasn't McDonalds, or fast food, either. These were farms, and farmers. 'Whole-hearty cattle, and dairy-products'. Straight from the ranch.

My father has been eating meat, for what? Let's see, about 57 years. He's 59. He's been told his whole life that animal products were good for him, he went into the Navy, and gained 30lbs, meat. And he's just recently coming to terms, that it was bullshit. Actually coming to terms. Within the last year. Lied to. For over 50 years.

There is no credential evidence to support we need meat, or animal by-products in any shape, or form. It's bull. Backed up by a hundred billion-dollar industry. Sheep's led to slaughter.

I've lived on a sail boat for, most of my life. You know what I see? Fat, old, men. And wrinkly old broads, with dry skin. For the past decade. You know what they're eating? Out on their outside BBQ's, and stoves. Meat. And they're all fat. I've seen maybe a few healthy, fit couples.

And then look over at Japan; 95% skinny, healthy, slim, defined. Grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables.

Who am I to believe? The slim, Japanese male man, who's lived 70 years on grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables.

Or the fat 70 year-old American, with a beer-gut, flipping a juicy paddy.

There's no other way to look around. And Japan is the greatest example that I can give, given their history, and culture. 5,000 years, without as a single piece of meat from a land animal, because there are no ingenious species on the island, that the Japanese could eat. They survived purely on a grain, and plant-based diet. For 5,000 years. The most healthiest people, culture, and land known to history. Japanese men outlive the average American, by an average of 12 years! And people want to say they're malnourished? I can't buy into it.

There's autopsy's, and surgeries that show you what meat is doing to the body. And it isn't healthy. Even in 'moderation'. Your first hamburger is the beginning of heart-disease. Plaque is already lining the arteries.

If we needed it, than why is it harming us.

The cards are laid out on the table, and there's no other way for me to look at it.

So, you're saying. The Japanese, who have lived on the island of Japan, for the past 5,000 years. Have been malnourished? For the better part of 5,000 years, the Japanese people haven't gotten the foods that are needed to survive; meat? The most healthiest nation in history, who had a death-rate of around age 80 - 100. Most women living into their low 100's. The most healthiest women in the world, living at average of 101. Has been malnourished, for over 5,000 years? The island of Japan has no indigenous animals, that were consumed by the Japanese people. They ate grain, beans, fruits, and veggies. And once in a while a fish, for over 5,000 years. The most healthiest people in the world, is malnourished, because they don't eat meat. Well, most of them, today.

A lot of what you're saying here about the Japanese diet for "5,000 years" is highly inaccurate. The Japanese have had domesticated food animals for thousands of years and have their own beef raising tradition and have raised chickens for a long time, etc. Also, many different cultural groups in Japan hunted as well as fished. Japanese cuisine is filled with meat and fish dishes and many of those go well back to before modern times, though meat was in short supply and fish was the main protein source for many Japanese until modern times. Also, yes, historically the Japanese were malnourished. It is one of the reasons they were so damned small!

Humans didn't start eating meat when they discovered fire. Before that they ate it raw. I've heard scientists suspect that was what our appendix was for. Anything on ancient man I've watched or read suggested man ate meat whenever they could get it. There's a fatty acid only found in animal protein that we need.

The fatty acid that is found in animal protein, is found purely in the fat that animals produce. If you would like to eat pure lard, from an animal, daily. You can be my guest.

Eating raw meat? Well, let's see. Have you ever seen an ape? It has teeth just like ours. Evolution is lazy, right? Why would evolution sharpen our teeth, so that we could eat meat raw. And in the last 50-60,000 years file them down, so that... what? We wouldn't stab ourselves with our teeth? It's nearly impossible to bite inside an animal hide, unless you were to skin it, first. It takes a minimum of 1,000lbs per sq. in. to bite into an animal hide. We currently only have 400. How is that possible? Evolution moves forward. Not backwards.

Apes mostly have sharp pointy teeth because they have diets consisting of string vegetables, but chimps of certain kinds have gotten a bloodlust in them and eaten other animals.

Oh and get what a lot of apes eat? Bugs! Meat! Wriggling little bits and blobs of meat.

The Panda lives entirely off of bamboo but has sharp teeth and claws.

Also, to use your point evolution moves forward, and don't you think a creature that can eat and subsist on meat and plant matter to be superior to the carnivore or herbivore?

One more thing. No plant matter with exception to the (possibly cancerous, hormonal nightmare) soybean. Every other plant matter needs a minimum of two plants to create a complete amino acid. Wheat and peanuts for instance. All meat from every meat-critter that exists contains complete amino acids.

Also, there are studies that show cancer (short of getting radiated) is probably 99% genetic. Now granted, there's no reason to go soaking yourself in lard, but anyone on a modestly balanced daily-recommended diet isn't really going to increase their cancer risk, nor is a vegan diet really going to lower it.

That thing about Japan couldn't be more erroneous if you tried. I'm sorry to state that the only meat the Western world brought to Japan was beef. Japan has had chicken and pork as far back as clan Yamamoto. It's in all manner of historical records.

Also, when one thinks of Japan of what do they think? That's right sushi sushi is an ancient way of preserving fish, and no, the first sushi was not a way to make rice taste better. They used to soak the rice in alcohol or vinegar and wrap it in nori (the seaweed wrapping). This would ferment the fish and the Japanese would take the rice and nori off and eat the fermented fish.

So, no, I don't think that meat is something humans weren't meant to eat. I don't think that humanity suddenly decided it want to eat meat by sheer force of will, and I'd also like to point out that various other human sub-species also consisted entirely upon meat. It's probably the interbreeding of the various sub-species that lead to our current omnivorial state.

Now, you won't here me saying that modern man doesn't move enough and probably eats way too much meat, but the idea that we're somehow herbivores who managed to diversify totally into meat-eating just cause is ludicrous. Nope, the sad fact is not even Homo Sapiens Sapiens was on the top of his food-chain, we were often opportunistic indiscriminant feeders. We were just as likely to eat a berry as yank the spider off the berry bush.

In point of fact, there are some that blame the whole ecological crisis on humanity's agricultural revolution (when we started climbing to the top of our food web). That's right they blame vegetable and grain eating for destroying the world. I don't believe that personally, but I do believe our dietary flexibility put us on top.

Most of the animals that live on the island of Japan, were imported from China. Including pork, and chicken. Japan was a secluded island, until China founded it.

Ask a Japanese person how many times a month they eat fish. I bet most will say once a week, for raw fish. And sashimi, at least one a month. They do not eat it very often. So what would you make you think they eat meat on the daily? They probably ate pork once, to twice a month. Because that's the current of an indigenous Japanese civilian.

Humans ate meat out of a need for necessity, survival. Like any other animal in the wild. But were not made to survive on it, it's not digestively possible. Like any other omnivore, we can not survive purely on meat. We would die. Any kind of omnivore can survive on pure meat, but we can not. Your answer?

We're on the top of the food chain, because we can innovate, it had nothing to do with eating meat, or not. We are more intellectual adaptable, and knowledgeable, than any other species. Knowledge is power, not the ability to eat your opponent.

Grain eating is destroying the world, but we're not the one's who are eating it. 99% of the grain that is eaten, is eaten by the animals that they feed it to for our satisfaction. We could feed the world 100x over, with the amount of grain, and vegetables that we feed to corporate animals, for meat, and dairy products. Billions of dollars invested into grain, so that we can slaughter a billion cows every year.

It was our ability to kill the animal that put us at the top, to be far smarter than it. Not our ability to cook, and eat it.

Like any other omnivore, we can not survive purely on meat. We would die. Any kind of omnivore can survive on pure meat, but we can not. Your answer?

Mmmkay I've pulled this quote out to illustrate my point. It's clear you feel passionately about this subject and that's awesome. I feel though that that passion is getting in the way of you writing clearly and comprehensibly. Clearly there's a typo/misued word in that quote but honestly I don't know where and what it is.

I'm glad that the diet you follow is working for you, glad that its working well enough you want to evangelise. But I think your emotions are getting in the way here, whatever point it is you're trying to make is being lost a bit in the storm of words. I want to hear what you say, TheChronicles, but I can't until you slow down a little and choose your words a little more carefully. Largely my issue, I'm sure, not being as knowledgeable about this topic as you. But if you could pander to my layman-ness and up the precision a little I would appreciate it.

A lot of what you're saying here about the Japanese diet for "5,000 years" is highly inaccurate. The Japanese have had domesticated food animals for thousands of years and have their own beef raising tradition and have raised chickens for a long time, etc. Also, many different cultural groups in Japan hunted as well as fished. Japanese cuisine is filled with meat and fish dishes and many of those go well back to before modern times, though meat was in short supply and fish was the main protein source for many Japanese until modern times. Also, yes, historically the Japanese were malnourished. It is one of the reasons they were so damned small!

'Food', animals have been imported from China, during the years 300AC. And the tactics into raising those animals was also imported from China. Beef was founded by the Japanese, until the late 1800's. Most Japanese cuisine is plant, and grain-based.

The modern Japanese individual consumes fish at least once a week. And Sashimi (sushi), at least once a month.

If the Japanese are malnourished, than how do they live so long? Most Japanese have not changed their meal-process, for the past thousands of years. If they were malnourished in the past, than they are still malnourished, because most Japanese do not consume any animal meat, more than twice a month.

The average, modern-day Japanese male is currently 5'7". The average Japanese female is 5'3". I'm Japanese. I'm 5'5". If the Japanese were small, because they were historically malnourished, than why didn't it rub off genetically? The average height of a Japanese male in the mid-1900's, is 5'4", female 4'10". Are you telling me that not only, was it not genetic, but changing. Why?

I never said I don't think people eat too much meat, but you're making it sound like the Original Sin was the eating of meat. There are several theories that show, and there's some credence given to it, that it's our varied diet that let us evolve the big brains to enjoy intellectual adaptability. If a pure herbivore or carnivore could evolve a big brain why haven't they? Why is our closest and most intelligent relative the chimpanzee an eater of fruit and termites?

If it were a gustatorial impossibility to subsist entirely on meat then why does the lion live, the tiger, the buzzard, the hawk, the eagle, the piranha, the mantis, and several wole sections of kingdoms.

I get this is a rant, but you're really skewing hard fact to support your claims. Yes, meat is something we should enjoy more occasionally than the Western world probably does, but honestly. The simply sugars and carbs of modern food and processed wheat are way more unhealthy than meat. Lean meat is hardly the worst thing a human being can eat.

You're getting very dogmatic about it, and believe me if you're making it work more power to you, but like I said, you're really editorializing the facts.

EDIT: Anyway, I probably shouldn't have stepped into this, being a rant and all. So I'm bowing out.

Apes mostly have sharp pointy teeth because they have diets consisting of string vegetables, but chimps of certain kinds have gotten a bloodlust in them and eaten other animals.

Oh and get what a lot of apes eat? Bugs! Meat! Wriggling little bits and blobs of meat.

The Panda lives entirely off of bamboo but has sharp teeth and claws.

Also, to use your point evolution moves forward, and don't you think a creature that can eat and subsist on meat and plant matter to be superior to the carnivore or herbivore?

One more thing. No plant matter with exception to the (possibly cancerous, hormonal nightmare) soybean. Every other plant matter needs a minimum of two plants to create a complete amino acid. Wheat and peanuts for instance. All meat from every meat-critter that exists contains complete amino acids.

Also, there are studies that show cancer (short of getting radiated) is probably 99% genetic. Now granted, there's no reason to go soaking yourself in lard, but anyone on a modestly balanced daily-recommended diet isn't really going to increase their cancer risk, nor is a vegan diet really going to lower it.

Most of what we think of a good dietary plan, is hypothetical science, and history. Chimps have gotten a bloodlust for eating chimps of an opposite clan. It was lead by territorial feud, that ultimately began a lust for meat in opposing clans. I saw that documentary, too. Whether they coincided it with the killing of their enemy, or the actual lust for blood. They aren't sure.

I never said I don't think people eat too much meat, but you're making it sound like the Original Sin was the eating of meat. There are several theories that show, and there's some credence given to it, that it's our varied diet that let us evolve the big brains to enjoy intellectual adaptability. If a pure herbivore or carnivore could evolve a big brain why haven't they? Why is our closest and most intelligent relative the chimpanzee an eater of fruit and termites?

If it were a gustatorial impossibility to subsist entirely on meat then why does the lion live, the tiger, the buzzard, the hawk, the eagle, the piranha, the mantis, and several wole sections of kingdoms.

I get this is a rant, but you're really skewing hard fact to support your claims. Yes, meat is something we should enjoy more occasionally than the Western world probably does, but honestly. The simply sugars and carbs of modern food and processed wheat are way more unhealthy than meat. Lean meat is hardly the worst thing a human being can eat.

You're getting very dogmatic about it, and believe me if you're making it work more power to you, but like I said, you're really editorializing the facts.

EDIT: Anyway, I probably shouldn't have stepped into this, being a rant and all. So I'm bowing out.

A tiger was built to survive on a high carnivores diet. Any other omnivore in the wild can live on a pure carnivores, and/or herbivore diet. If we are at the stage of evolution to be an omnivore, than why can't we eat a pure meat diet, without a life expectancy, of 20 years?

All of which that I am using in my argument, I learned from previous knowledge. When I watched Dr. Esselstyn's research, it blew me away. And he said that his research could reverse heart-disease. Like nothing I've ever seen. Like Jesus saying he was "the son of God." I have never seen anyone else state such a fact.

Look at president Clinton. A president, 3 bypass surgeries. Turned to Dr. Esselstyn's research, and has been on it for the past decade. An ex-president of the United States of America, able to afford the best medical care the world can offer. Clinton asked how he was going to fix his problem, and the doctor told him he could not. And that he would have to go on pills. He found Dr. Esselstyn's research, and has committed to it for the past decade. Without any health problems. And no heart-attacks. No heart-disease. And, you know what? He never spoke up about it openly. He never got up and said that he was a vegan. Because the meat industry would have tore him down.

Oprah said bad things about the meat-industry, and was sued by 'big-meat'. Sued. Oprah Winfrey. Probably the most powerful civilian in the world. Is sued by a meat corporation. And it shut her up. You have to have a lot of power, and a lot of money to sue someone like Oprah. And shut her up about it. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Mmmkay I've pulled this quote out to illustrate my point. It's clear you feel passionately about this subject and that's awesome. I feel though that that passion is getting in the way of you writing clearly and comprehensibly. Clearly there's a typo/misued word in that quote but honestly I don't know where and what it is.

I'm glad that the diet you follow is working for you, glad that its working well enough you want to evangelise. But I think your emotions are getting in the way here, whatever point it is you're trying to make is being lost a bit in the storm of words. I want to hear what you say, TheChronicles, but I can't until you slow down a little and choose your words a little more carefully. Largely my issue, I'm sure, not being as knowledgeable about this topic as you. But if you could pander to my layman-ness and up the precision a little I would appreciate it.

I don't get into controversial topics often, but I felt a bit chipper.

You can see every thing you need to know from the videos that I have posted. Better-explained, than I can. By professional individuals, top of their class, and respected fields. Including Dr. Esselstyn. Top-standing biochemist in the world.

'Food', animals have been imported from China, during the years 300AC. And the tactics into raising those animals was also imported from China. Beef was founded by the Japanese, until the late 1800's. Most Japanese cuisine is plant, and grain-based.

The modern Japanese individual consumes fish at least once a week. And Sashimi (sushi), at least once a month.

If the Japanese are malnourished, than how do they live so long? Most Japanese have not changed their meal-process, for the past thousands of years. If they were malnourished in the past, than they are still malnourished, because most Japanese do not consume any animal meat, more than twice a week.

The average, modern-day Japanese male is currently 5'7". The average Japanese female is 5'3". I'm Japanese. I'm 5'5". If the Japanese were small, because they were historically malnourished, than why didn't it rub off genetically? The average height of a Japanese male in the mid-1900's, is 5'4", female 4'10". Are you telling me that not only, was it not genetic, but changing. Why?

Ironically, studies show that Japanese (With Okinawans/Ryukans being the really long lived population!) long life expectancy largely is genetic while the shorter Japanese height of the past was largely factors such as sitting on the floor and a low animal protein and fat diet. And your numbers just proved my point, back in the mid 1900s when the Japanese ate a diet much lower in animal proteins and fats they were shorter and as they have eaten higher protein and fat diets the national average height (Especially female!) has grown significantly. Anyhow, your point of view is your own and I have no illusions that I'm going to change your mind, however, science and fact and many other things disagree with you hugely that animal products are killing us who consume them!

Ironically, studies show that Japanese (With Okinawans/Ryukans being the really long lived population!) long life expectancy largely is genetic while the shorter Japanese height of the past was largely factors such as sitting on the floor and a low animal protein and fat diet. And your numbers just proved my point, back in the mid 1900s when the Japanese ate a diet much lower in animal proteins and fats they were shorter and as they have eaten higher protein and fat diets the national average height (Especially female!) has grown significantly. Anyhow, your point of view is your own and I have no illusions that I'm going to change your mind, however, science and fact and many other things disagree with you hugely that animal products are killing us who consume them!

And there are many scientific facts that point against the Paleo diet plan. Some dating back hundreds of years, while we were still a skinny-nation. I'd like to use my iguana quote, again. If you feed an iguana, which will eat almost anything. Just like humans. The meat-eating iguana will get bigger, than the herbivore iguana. But it will be lazy, weak, and diseased with gout. While smaller, the herbivore iguana, is bright-colored, vibrant, and strong. I'd also like to state that iguana's only have on stomach. Do you know who else develops gout from a carnivore diet? Humans. How is that explained. How do you explain the large peak in heart-disease, and cancer. We have to eat meat as apart of our dietary plan, but it has to slowly poison, and kill us in the process?

If you can't eat steak raw, than what good is it cooked? If we can't eat steak in large quantities, than what good is it in moderation? Every carnivore in the history of the world has developed an immune system against any disease, which may find itself into it's bloodstream. If humans were as evolved, as people say, to healthfully eat meat. Than we would have, also, developed an immune system against any known diseases, and viruses hidden inside raw meat. But we didn't. And we haven't. Raw meat is no more safe, than drinking acid. Cooked steak is no more safe than smoking cigarettes. But, only in 'moderation'.

Okinawa is the second-largest city within the nation of Japan. What's your point? Hard to live that long on a malnourished diet, wouldn't you say? Actually, hard to live any amount of years on a malnourished diet. How exactly were the Japanese malnourished, again? One of the biggest, strongest empires of the world, thousands of wars, dating back thousands of years. The most elite close-combat, and tactical fighting force in the history of the world. Would be a little hard to achieve that on a malnourished diet, wouldn't it? Not enough oxygen, and nutrients to the brain. How did they even find the time to be an elite tactical fighting-force? How did they find the strength, in their malnourished bones, and muscles to decapitate someone's head, limbs, and even push one of their swords straight through someone's gut? It's quit hard to stab someone, did you know that. Muscle-tissue is a very dense, and elastic product of the human body. It's hard to cut through it, with just any blunt instrument. Not to mention their armor, which was also very state-of-the-art.

Even with Japan's state-of-the-art, slicing-machines, that they say could slice right through steel? Which reminds me, how exactly did they create these advanced combat-efficient swords, on a malnourished diet? If you're malnourished, that also means you're at the beginning stage of dehydration, and while making a weapon of any kind, takes a lot of work, and smoke blown into your face. While you breath in smoke, it deprives your body of oxygen, nutrients, and hydration. So I imagine many people died while making these swords?

Did you know Japan missed the industrial age, during the second World War? "Dang!" But they still came out with the most efficiently-made war ships the world has ever seen. Their tactics of war were uncanny, and their fleet was nearly indestructible. Until we destroyed it, of course. During, which, at this time. Japan was still a very isolated country. Homogenous. Still are. They didn't see much beef, and still didn't eat much pork, and chicken. How was all this done on a malnourished diet?

They say that during the age of Samurai, men were built like tigers. But they weren't receiving enough animal by-products to be efficient fighters. They carried around 50lbs of armor, and the ability to cut a man clean in half, in his armor, while still in that suit. I would say that's very hard to do, while malnourished, from a famish of animal by-products?

You seem to be very passionate about this (not a bad thing, usually), but you also seem to be fairly confrontational and pushing the idea that meat, any meat, is -always- bad for you and evil. Don't take this the wrong way, but please try to tone it down? You're doing the internet midnight televangelist version of shoving your face into ours and shouting 'meat is EVIL!!!! *shakes hands for emphasis*'. It's not helping your argument.

As for your argument, I and others can find just as many scientific papers proving that meat can/is an essential part of the diet and helps make a complete meal that supplies all of thew dietary needs a person could want. Over consumption of meat is bad, as is the over consumption of anything. It can be eaten safely, in moderation, and it won't harm you that much (no more than eating anything else will). The diet you're pushing might work well for some and you, but not necessarily for others. And meat eating can and is healthy, if done in moderation. We've eaten meat for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years. We didn't just suddenly decide to pick it up when fire was discovered (if we had been purely herbivores before, how would our stomachs and intestines have been able to process meat then? It's not like we were like the horse and suddenly decided to start nomming on antelope for dinner). There is evolutionary evidence that we have been meat eaters for a very long time.

You also seem to be flat out dismissing what others are saying about Japan that show a different view of Japan. I personally don't know a lot about nutrition, but I do know one thing, one sign of malnourishment is a short/small population. The Japanese have gotten taller, since their country was opened to the outside world. Noticeably so. And Japanese are still living a very long time (good health care is seeing to that, more people are living to see adulthood and not dying in childhood and such). Just as we in the West are living longer as well.

If you can't eat steak raw, than what good is it cooked? If we can't eat steak in large quantities, than what good is it in moderation? Every carnivore in the history of the world has developed an immune system against any disease, which may find itself into it's bloodstream. If humans were as evolved, as people say, to healthfully eat meat. Than we would have, also, developed an immune system against any known diseases, and viruses hidden inside raw meat. But we didn't. And we haven't. Raw meat is no more safe, than drinking acid. Cooked steak is no more safe than smoking cigarettes. But, only in 'moderation'.

I got to say I disagree with the last part. Eating raw meat will, sooner than later, lead to several nasty diseases. That's why cooking it is recommended, so we can safely eat it and eating meat is a LOT safer than smoking cigarettes (not to mention it tastes much better. Meat is tasty).

One thing you should consider in your argument, was it really possible to, without the use of agriculture to grow crops, possible to eat a totally vegan diet and survive on the plants that were just in the area you and your tribe lived in? What about when agriculture was discovered? Crops would have been limited to just what was in the area you lived in until trade routes, or invaders brought in new plants. Meat is something that can easily sustain people and it something we are meant to eat as a species. We can now do without it because we know what plants to eat that can provide the necessary nutrients meat provides, but that wasn't exactly possible more than a hundred years ago or so because we didn't really know what was in foods nutritionally. Now we do.

Apes... apes mostly eat plants and such, but they also eat bugs: grubs, ants, termites, beetles and the like are all equally edible and eaten, so they do eat meat.

Not too related to the current discussion but would anyone agree with me that drinking a decent amount of water each day does good for the body's health? I drink around a bottle to a bottle and a half each day.

I got to say I disagree with the last part. Eating raw meat will, sooner than later, lead to several nasty diseases. That's why cooking it is recommended, so we can safely eat it and eating meat is a LOT safer than smoking cigarettes (not to mention it tastes much better. Meat is tasty).

One thing you should consider in your argument, was it really possible to, without the use of agriculture to grow crops, possible to eat a totally vegan diet and survive on the plants that were just in the area you and your tribe lived in? What about when agriculture was discovered? Crops would have been limited to just what was in the area you lived in until trade routes, or invaders brought in new plants. Meat is something that can easily sustain people and it something we are meant to eat as a species. We can now do without it because we know what plants to eat that can provide the necessary nutrients meat provides, but that wasn't exactly possible more than a hundred years ago or so because we didn't really know what was in foods nutritionally. Now we do.

Apes... apes mostly eat plants and such, but they also eat bugs: grubs, ants, termites, beetles and the like are all equally edible and eaten, so they do eat meat.

That's why humans were nomads for the better part of our history. We consume one area, and move on to another. Some might say that we are a virus, which I agree. We invade one area, and spread. We deplete the area of all it's resources, and then we find another.

If you were to smoke a cigarette a day, as opposed to eating one steak per day. I guarantee you will be no more healthier than that smoker will be.

Agriculture in America was a far bigger business, than cattle was. And, no. I would have to disagree. There are for more plants, than there are animals in the world. Edible plants are abundant at nearly every corner of the Earth, if you know how to look.

I think that the first humans developed gathering skills from instinct. We watched what other animals ate, and tried it. Do you think that we killing buffalo in the beginning of the first-era? Edible plants use to be far more abundant, than they are today. We have destroyed most of what was. A hundreds years ago was 1915. My Grandma would have been born 17 years later. They ate grains, and beans. With meats, and by-products once in a great while.

That's why humans were nomads for the better part of our history. We consume one area, and move on to another. Some might say that we are a virus, which I agree. We invade one area, and spread. We deplete the area of all it's resources, and then we find another.

If you were to smoke a cigarette a day, as opposed to eating one steak per day. I guarantee you will be no more healthier than that smoker will be.

Agriculture in America was a far bigger business, than cattle was. And, no. I would have to disagree. There are for more plants, than there are animals in the world. Edible plants are abundant at nearly every corner of the Earth, if you know how to look.

I think that the first humans developed gathering skills from instinct. We watched what other animals ate, and tried it. Do you think that we killing buffalo in the beginning of the first-era? Edible plants use to be far more abundant, than they are today. We have destroyed most of what was. A hundreds years ago was 1915. My Grandma would have been born 17 years later. They ate grains, and beans. With meats, and by-products once in a great while.

Bolded the part I want to discuss.

You do realize that 1929 was the beginning of the Great Depression, yes? Many, many, many, many thousands did not eat meat on any sort of regular basis during that time period. No one could afford it. That also coincided with the Great Dust Bowl of the "dirty thirties".

So, please. Do not ignore important facts when trying to shove your eating regime down all of our throats. There was a very large reason your grandmother did not eat meat regularly. Same reason my grandmother didn't. It wasn't readily available nor affordable.

You seem to be very passionate about this (not a bad thing, usually), but you also seem to be fairly confrontational and pushing the idea that meat, any meat, is -always- bad for you and evil. Don't take this the wrong way, but please try to tone it down? You're doing the internet midnight televangelist version of shoving your face into ours and shouting 'meat is EVIL!!!! *shakes hands for emphasis*'. It's not helping your argument.

As for your argument, I and others can find just as many scientific papers proving that meat can/is an essential part of the diet and helps make a complete meal that supplies all of thew dietary needs a person could want. Over consumption of meat is bad, as is the over consumption of anything. It can be eaten safely, in moderation, and it won't harm you that much (no more than eating anything else will). The diet you're pushing might work well for some and you, but not necessarily for others. And meat eating can and is healthy, if done in moderation. We've eaten meat for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years. We didn't just suddenly decide to pick it up when fire was discovered (if we had been purely herbivores before, how would our stomachs and intestines have been able to process meat then? It's not like we were like the horse and suddenly decided to start nomming on antelope for dinner). There is evolutionary evidence that we have been meat eaters for a very long time.

You also seem to be flat out dismissing what others are saying about Japan that show a different view of Japan. I personally don't know a lot about nutrition, but I do know one thing, one sign of malnourishment is a short/small population. The Japanese have gotten taller, since their country was opened to the outside world. Noticeably so. And Japanese are still living a very long time (good health care is seeing to that, more people are living to see adulthood and not dying in childhood and such). Just as we in the West are living longer as well.

There is also scientific proof that says meat is unable to fully process it's products, including the fat. Animal fat can sit in the human digestive system for many hours, before it is fully digested into the system. And in some cases, ferment inside of the digest system, which leads to acid reflux. That doesn't sound very healthy.

We discovered meat, when there was nothing else for us to consume. So we fed on the livestock, and in some cases, ourselves. The average death-rate of the Japanese male has dropped increasingly, since the introduction of large cattle into their country.

Not too related to the current discussion but would anyone agree with me that drinking a decent amount of water each day does good for the body's health? I drink around a bottle to a bottle and a half each day.

So, about 30 fluid oz. per day? Or a quart. I usually drink around 2 quarts a day. But if you manage a healthy diet, whatever it may be. Sounds good to me.

You do realize that 1929 was the beginning of the Great Depression, yes? Many, many, many, many thousands did not eat meat on any sort of regular basis during that time period. No one could afford it. That also coincided with the Great Dust Bowl of the "dirty thirties".

So, please. Do not ignore important facts when trying to shove your eating regime down all of our throats. There was a very large reason your grandmother did not eat meat regularly. Same reason my grandmother didn't. It wasn't readily available nor affordable.

Well, this was a rant. That had been moved. And I am not 'shoving it', into their faces. If they wish to discuss it with me, than I shall use all of my knowledge, that I have learned, to go against what they have said. I am no more shoving it into their faces, as they are shoving their knowledge into mine.

My father ate a pure grain, and bean diet for the better part of his childhood, and he was a surfer, and cross-country runner. Granted, they didn't have much money to afford meat products. But that's the point I'm trying to get across. You don't need meat to survive.

This is what the 'rant', is about. You don't need meat, it's harmful to the body. It kills. And if people wish to leave a post, and discuss what knowledge they know about it with me, than they may as they wish, but I'm going to put my say in, as well.

Still stands that you ignore facts that do not support what you want. Eating meat is not poisoning us. In moderation it is good for us. You can argue it all you want, but no offense, I will go by what my personal doctor says than someone I don't know from the internet.

Still stands that you ignore facts that do not support what you want. Eating meat is not poisoning us. In moderation it is good for us. You can argue it all you want, but no offense, I will go by what my personal doctor says than someone I don't know from the internet.

If you watch Dr. Esselstyn's research seminar, which I posted. The leading biochemist in the world. He backs up pure evidence of his research. Along with his team, and subjects. Along with other videos, that I had posted in this thread. If you wish to watch those. My dad got ripped on a lean, low carb diet in his 40's. He's tried every diet under the sun, I know. And I saw how strongly he felt about it. So I changed, too. I, also got ripped on a paleo diet. But I now believe, that it isn't the way forward.

While traveling the East-coast, I have eaten every burger there is. From Baltiomore, MD. To Miami Beach, FL. I have probably eaten over 1,000 burgers, and every other kind of meat product you can think of. I once ate a 32oz. steak by myself, in a little under an hour. I know how to eat meat. My joints would stiffen, and crack. I was developing muscular dystrophy. I use to weigh 115lbs, and now weighing nearly 120lbs.

But this is factual opinion.

And this was a rant. Now a controversial, discussion.

The food that we eat shouldn't poison us. It is unnatural.

Yes. I am ignoring most of these 'opinions'. Not facts. Because I view them, and millions of other people also view them untrue. A fact, cannot be a fact, if someone else thinks it incorrect. It is just an opinion. Most of what I have said are opinions, as I quoted. "Most of what we think of a good dietary plan, is hypothetical science, and history." If you state to me that eating meat-based products isn't harmful to the human condition, than you are pushing your 'opinions' on me, just as you say I am. That's the crossroad.

I'm just going to put this right here http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/orthorexia-nervosa/ . I know that I've been guilty of this from time to time in the past, and I have quite a few friends that fall into this. Now, with all my food allergies and sensitivities, it can be challenging just to find foods that I won't react to. Eating healthy just happens naturally since processed food is out of the question, lol. But consequently, being vegan is never going to be an option for me.

The way you eat is what works for you, and that's great. I'm happy for you, and your father. But you have a unique genetic profile. Everyone else has their own. What works for you and makes you feel healthy - and happy - may not be what works for someone else. Even if you disagree with how other people choose to eat, you have to respect their choices.

For anyone interested in an in depth discussion of the role genetics play in personalized nutrition, I highly recommend The Plant Plus Diet Solution by by Joan Borysenko Ph.D. As I work with new doctors on addressing my fibro and Lyme's disease, I'm seeing a lot of what is discussed in the book showing up in my bloodwork. It's been a fascinating read.

You seem to be very passionate about this (not a bad thing, usually), but you also seem to be fairly confrontational and pushing the idea that meat, any meat, is -always- bad for you and evil. Don't take this the wrong way, but please try to tone it down? You're doing the internet midnight televangelist version of shoving your face into ours and shouting 'meat is EVIL!!!! *shakes hands for emphasis*'. It's not helping your argument.

As for your argument, I and others can find just as many scientific papers proving that meat can/is an essential part of the diet and helps make a complete meal that supplies all of thew dietary needs a person could want. Over consumption of meat is bad, as is the over consumption of anything. It can be eaten safely, in moderation, and it won't harm you that much (no more than eating anything else will). The diet you're pushing might work well for some and you, but not necessarily for others. And meat eating can and is healthy, if done in moderation. We've eaten meat for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years. We didn't just suddenly decide to pick it up when fire was discovered (if we had been purely herbivores before, how would our stomachs and intestines have been able to process meat then? It's not like we were like the horse and suddenly decided to start nomming on antelope for dinner). There is evolutionary evidence that we have been meat eaters for a very long time.

You also seem to be flat out dismissing what others are saying about Japan that show a different view of Japan. I personally don't know a lot about nutrition, but I do know one thing, one sign of malnourishment is a short/small population. The Japanese have gotten taller, since their country was opened to the outside world. Noticeably so. And Japanese are still living a very long time (good health care is seeing to that, more people are living to see adulthood and not dying in childhood and such). Just as we in the West are living longer as well.

Nothing would help my argument, if you believe it untrue. You can't change human nature.

I'm just going to put this right here http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/orthorexia-nervosa/ . I know that I've been guilty of this from time to time in the past, and I have quite a few friends that fall into this. Now, with all my food allergies and sensitivities, it can be challenging just to find foods that I won't react to. Eating healthy just happens naturally since processed food is out of the question, lol. But consequently, being vegan is never going to be an option for me.

The way you eat is what works for you, and that's great. I'm happy for you, and your father. But you have a unique genetic profile. Everyone else has their own. What works for you and makes you feel healthy - and happy - may not be what works for someone else. Even if you disagree with how other people choose to eat, you have to respect their choices.

For anyone interested in an in depth discussion of the role genetics play in personalized nutrition, I highly recommend The Plant Plus Diet Solution by by Joan Borysenko Ph.D. As I work with new doctors on addressing my fibro and Lyme's disease, I'm seeing a lot of what is discussed in the book showing up in my bloodwork. It's been a fascinating read.

Research can flow both way. One approving it, another disproving it. In most, I believe it is left up to the individual to make that choice. Hypothetical opinions, and theories.

If you can't eat steak raw, than what good is it cooked? If we can't eat steak in large quantities, than what good is it in moderation? Every carnivore in the history of the world has developed an immune system against any disease, which may find itself into it's bloodstream. If humans were as evolved, as people say, to healthfully eat meat. Than we would have, also, developed an immune system against any known diseases, and viruses hidden inside raw meat. But we didn't. And we haven't. Raw meat is no more safe, than drinking acid. Cooked steak is no more safe than smoking cigarettes. But, only in 'moderation'.

Not too related to the current discussion but would anyone agree with me that drinking a decent amount of water each day does good for the body's health? I drink around a bottle to a bottle and a half each day.

It is a scientifically proven fact that water - consumed in large quantities - can be fatal.

So. Taking your statement above, I would ask you this: 'If we can't drink water in large quantities, than what good is it in moderation?'

Research can flow both way. One approving it, another disproving it. In most, I believe it is left up to the individual to make that choice. Hypothetical opinions, and theories.

As long as you agree that it also applies to the research, hypothetical opinions and theories that you've posted - and that you actually allow all of us engaging in the conversation to make that choice for ourselves rather than trying to convince everyone in the thread that our point of view is incorrect simply because it's different than yours.

I hate to say this but a: you're cherry picking your information and b: most of it is wrong.

Meat is crucial to human nutrition. B12 is a critical vitamin that we cannot manufacture in our own body and cannot be found naturally in any plant. It is found, naturally, in meat. So, for as long as we have been homo sapiens, we have been eating meat in some quantity. Nowadays, it can be artificially made but that's part of the big pharma you seem to dislike so much.

Dr. Esselstyn, whom you use almost exclusively to prove your wrong point is an MD, he is not a 'leading biochemist' or a leading anything. He's a surgeon. He is also making his living off of selling his diet via books, speaking engagements, items and so on – so he's got a financial interest in this diet you're peddling for him.

I don't know what your kick is about Japan but the Japanese have always been meat eaters. They eat eggs, fish, an assortment of fowl and so on. They don't eat much milk or cheese because of a minor genetic difference that means they can't digest it well.

The modern Western diet is shitty, it contributes to a lot of suffering and death. That doesn't mean that there's some miracle single cure (like eating no meat) to solve it.

To be honest I'm so flabbergasted by this statement that I had to point it out especially:

Quote

I am ignoring most of these 'opinions'. Not facts. Because I view them, and millions of other people also view them untrue. A fact, cannot be a fact, if someone else thinks it incorrect.

A fact is something that is true regardless of what you, me or anyone else believes. Such as, for example, the Earth moves around the Sun. For centuries, humans believed the Sun rotated around the Earth and they had all sorts of charts and graphs and stories that proved it. However the Earth continued to orbit the Sun, regardless of what anyone believed. It is a fact.

Some other facts:*B12 is a critical human nutrient, found only in meat.*Dr. Esseltyn is an MD, not a leading biochemist (the wiki link you use states that, for god's sake!)*The human digestive system is set up to digest both plant and meat – pure herbivores have a very different digestive system than ours, same for obligate carnivores. We can digest almost all animals we can stuff into our mouth, there are a great many plants we can't eat.

I'm glad the diet works for you – though, frankly, one of the side effects seems to be fanaticism. That doesn't make it a universal truth.

And there are many scientific facts that point against the Paleo diet plan. Some dating back hundreds of years, while we were still a skinny-nation. I'd like to use my iguana quote, again. If you feed an iguana, which will eat almost anything. Just like humans. The meat-eating iguana will get bigger, than the herbivore iguana. But it will be lazy, weak, and diseased with gout. While smaller, the herbivore iguana, is bright-colored, vibrant, and strong. I'd also like to state that iguana's only have on stomach. Do you know who else develops gout from a carnivore diet? Humans. How is that explained. How do you explain the large peak in heart-disease, and cancer. We have to eat meat as apart of our dietary plan, but it has to slowly poison, and kill us in the process?

If you can't eat steak raw, than what good is it cooked? If we can't eat steak in large quantities, than what good is it in moderation? Every carnivore in the history of the world has developed an immune system against any disease, which may find itself into it's bloodstream. If humans were as evolved, as people say, to healthfully eat meat. Than we would have, also, developed an immune system against any known diseases, and viruses hidden inside raw meat. But we didn't. And we haven't. Raw meat is no more safe, than drinking acid. Cooked steak is no more safe than smoking cigarettes. But, only in 'moderation'.

Okinawa is the second-largest city within the nation of Japan. What's your point? Hard to live that long on a malnourished diet, wouldn't you say? Actually, hard to live any amount of years on a malnourished diet. How exactly were the Japanese malnourished, again? One of the biggest, strongest empires of the world, thousands of wars, dating back thousands of years. The most elite close-combat, and tactical fighting force in the history of the world. Would be a little hard to achieve that on a malnourished diet, wouldn't it? Not enough oxygen, and nutrients to the brain. How did they even find the time to be an elite tactical fighting-force? How did they find the strength, in their malnourished bones, and muscles to decapitate someone's head, limbs, and even push one of their swords straight through someone's gut? It's quit hard to stab someone, did you know that. Muscle-tissue is a very dense, and elastic product of the human body. It's hard to cut through it, with just any blunt instrument. Not to mention their armor, which was also very state-of-the-art.

Even with Japan's state-of-the-art, slicing-machines, that they say could slice right through steel? Which reminds me, how exactly did they create these advanced combat-efficient swords, on a malnourished diet? If you're malnourished, that also means you're at the beginning stage of dehydration, and while making a weapon of any kind, takes a lot of work, and smoke blown into your face. While you breath in smoke, it deprives your body of oxygen, nutrients, and hydration. So I imagine many people died while making these swords?

Did you know Japan missed the industrial age, during the second World War? "Dang!" But they still came out with the most efficiently-made war ships the world has ever seen. Their tactics of war were uncanny, and their fleet was nearly indestructible. Until we destroyed it, of course. During, which, at this time. Japan was still a very isolated country. Homogenous. Still are. They didn't see much beef, and still didn't eat much pork, and chicken. How was all this done on a malnourished diet?

They say that during the age of Samurai, men were built like tigers. But they weren't receiving enough animal by-products to be efficient fighters. They carried around 50lbs of armor, and the ability to cut a man clean in half, in his armor, while still in that suit. I would say that's very hard to do, while malnourished, from a famish of animal by-products?

My friend, you may be of Japanese decent, however, your knowledge of Japan itself if rather...shall we say...um...faulty! Okinawa is not the second largest city in Japan, it is the largest island in the Ryukyu Islands that make up the southernmost region of Japan. Osaka is the second largest city in Japan. The population of Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands are noted for being long lived and the largest factor in that has been determined to be genetic with the simplicity of their diet contributing to it. A simple diet is certainly a healthy diet, however, that diet needs to be balanced and of course fit the individual. Traditional diets in the Japanese Archipelago varied greatly by region and culture and time period. The Jomon Culture did not cultivate rice and their major carbohydrate source were chestnuts, they also were hunters and gathered wild plants. Rice farming was introduced by the Yayoi Culture and that radically changed much of ancient Japan's diet. The Emishi and Ainu ate differently than the Yamato Japanese and the Ainu and Ryukyuan of today have different diets that mainstream Japanese people do. Modern Japanese diets varies by region and has been heavily influenced by other Asian and Western cuisine. However, all of that aside, the rice based traditional Yamato Japanese diet of at least the Edo period that lasted into near modern times was lacking in proteins and fats that led to a smaller population that suffered from various vitamin deficiencies and that is known fact. However, most non-modern staple diets did/do lack certain vitamins and such and is why modern nutritionists talk about a BALANCED diet.Of course vegetarian or vegan is a perfectly valid choice and if it works for someone, more power to em! However, I am a 6'1 (184 CM) 175 pound (80 kilo) man who eats animal protein five meals a day as part of a healthy diet and I do just fine. Is the average modern American diet awful? HELL YES! But it isn't the meat that people consume but the horrible empty calories of sugar and fats in processed foods and bad diet choices of eating way too much of the wrong kinds of food. Anyway, my entering into this conversation was largely to point out that wherever you got it from, you have a very misguided understanding of traditional and modern diets in the Japanese Archipelago.

That's why humans were nomads for the better part of our history. We consume one area, and move on to another. Some might say that we are a virus, which I agree. We invade one area, and spread. We deplete the area of all it's resources, and then we find another.

If you were to smoke a cigarette a day, as opposed to eating one steak per day. I guarantee you will be no more healthier than that smoker will be.

Agriculture in America was a far bigger business, than cattle was. And, no. I would have to disagree. There are for more plants, than there are animals in the world. Edible plants are abundant at nearly every corner of the Earth, if you know how to look.

I think that the first humans developed gathering skills from instinct. We watched what other animals ate, and tried it. Do you think that we killing buffalo in the beginning of the first-era? Edible plants use to be far more abundant, than they are today. We have destroyed most of what was. A hundreds years ago was 1915. My Grandma would have been born 17 years later. They ate grains, and beans. With meats, and by-products once in a great while.

Unless it was a migration, they were nomadic in -areas-, or in the Stone Age, sometimes sedentary and collected wild grains, vegetables and meat to survive. they ate what they could get. Meat provides a lot of needed nutrients and is in a fairly easy to get package. In the northernmost regions, the people who would become the Inuit and Eskimo people tended to subside on mainly meat because that is what they could get, and they were pretty bloody healthy. Fat, but healthy. And it worked for them.

Nothing would help my argument, if you believe it untrue. You can't change human nature.

Then you will always dismiss -any- claims that you don't agree with. What you seem to be failing to understand is that your argument is fairly confrontational and very dismissive of any claims you personally don't agree with. You see meat, any meat, as bad and harmful. Others here have dropped links that prove otherwise, get you are ignoring it because it doesn't fit your personal believe that meat = bad/unhealthy.

If you watch Dr. Esselstyn's research seminar, which I posted. The leading biochemist in the world. He backs up pure evidence of his research. Along with his team, and subjects. Along with other videos, that I had posted in this thread. If you wish to watch those. My dad got ripped on a lean, low carb diet in his 40's. He's tried every diet under the sun, I know. And I saw how strongly he felt about it. So I changed, too. I, also got ripped on a paleo diet. But I now believe, that it isn't the way forward.

While traveling the East-coast, I have eaten every burger there is. From Baltiomore, MD. To Miami Beach, FL. I have probably eaten over 1,000 burgers, and every other kind of meat product you can think of. I once ate a 32oz. steak by myself, in a little under an hour. I know how to eat meat. My joints would stiffen, and crack. I was developing muscular dystrophy. I use to weigh 115lbs, and now weighing nearly 120lbs.

But this is factual opinion.

And this was a rant. Now a controversial, discussion.

The food that we eat shouldn't poison us. It is unnatural.

Yes. I am ignoring most of these 'opinions'. Not facts. Because I view them, and millions of other people also view them untrue. A fact, cannot be a fact, if someone else thinks it incorrect. It is just an opinion. Most of what I have said are opinions, as I quoted. "Most of what we think of a good dietary plan, is hypothetical science, and history." If you state to me that eating meat-based products isn't harmful to the human condition, than you are pushing your 'opinions' on me, just as you say I am. That's the crossroad.

Aahh.. you're still ranting. Not debating or even really discussing when you're ignoring what others are saying and dismissing their evidence as mere opinion, while holding you your opinion as solid scientific fact (If I and others looked, we could find facts just as solid to argue against what your claimaing)There are other scientists, people who are trained biochemists, nutritionists and dieticians, who will say the opposite of what you are saying, and backup their claims WITH facts. Facts you are calling 'opinions' and thereby dismissing. Just because millions of people believe Dr. Esselstynn's research, doesn't necessarily mean that it is right. Other millions believe that eating meat, in moderation is also right and correct. Numbers of believers alone does not make someone right. Is Dr. Esslstynn's work peer reviewed and accepted and passed by the medical journals?

As for the diet, remember, that as Kuroneko said, that what works for you, will not necessarily work for others. Everyone's genetics is different and the same diet will not always work for everyone else. What works for you will not necessarily work for me. I like meat and probably eat too much of it, but I could eat it in moderation (beef, pork, chicken and sometimes fish (I dislike fish, bleh), but it's not going to be anymore healthy for me than a strictly vegan diet).

There is also scientific proof that says meat is unable to fully process it's products, including the fat. Animal fat can sit in the human digestive system for many hours, before it is fully digested into the system. And in some cases, ferment inside of the digest system, which leads to acid reflux. That doesn't sound very healthy.

We discovered meat, when there was nothing else for us to consume. So we fed on the livestock, and in some cases, ourselves. The average death-rate of the Japanese male has dropped increasingly, since the introduction of large cattle into their country.

Pfft. Corn on the cob does the same thing. Passes through relatively undigested, but like the meat, it passes through.

Aahhh. No. we discovered meat a loooong time ago and have been eating it for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. It has never been a recent discovery and we were solely herbivores until just before civilization developed (there are records and findings of humans eating meat back into the last Ice Age. So for 25,000+ years we have been eating meat, as well as grains and vegetables, as a species and it hasn't been harmful to us).

Large cattle, you mean western cattle? Might the drop of Japanese male death also be the introduction of better health care too? You seem very fixed on the Japanese being fully healthy and fit before the west ever opened up the nation.

There is also scientific proof that says meat is unable to fully process it's products, including the fat. Animal fat can sit in the human digestive system for many hours, before it is fully digested into the system. And in some cases, ferment inside of the digest system, which leads to acid reflux. That doesn't sound very healthy.

This is an absolute skewing of fact.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Humans suck! We are a terribly inefficient organism in a lot of ways. Regardless of diet I can tell you that humans give off seventy percent of anything they eat as body heat, and that's a lot more than is required by homeostasis.

We don't break down anything we eat 100% or even 90%, we're working off about 30% of whatever we eat. If you eat nothing but celery you will die, it takes more calories to break down celery than it provides. Plant and fruit matter is expelled (much like useless fat) in our number twos. If we were 100% efficient on plant diets, we'break physics. Now, generally that cellulose (while still containing lots of things cows get) provides a nice fiber boost for humans, but come on, you're blatantly ignoring facts of the human body here.

Also, acid reflux can be caused by an excess of acidic food. Tomatoes, lemons, peppers, wait... those are all plants.

No, excessive meat can cause gout (which is acid build up in joints) or constipation, and yeah, if you've got those you need to lay off, but a balanced diet with meat isn't going to lead to those conditions.

If you watch Dr. Esselstyn's research seminar, which I posted. The leading biochemist in the world.

If we admit that eating too much meat is bad for people, would you please concede that Dr. Esselstyn is not actually a biochemist, much less "the leading biochemist in the world"? Honestly, every time you use that phrase it's making my teeth grate.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's just a matter of accurately citing a man's qualifications. Dr. Esselstyn is an MD. He's not a biochemist. Those are two different things. He's no more a biochemist than he is a NASCAR driver, or a Catholic priest, or a salamander.

When you resist being corrected on the small stuff, it makes it difficult to want to engage with you on the bigger issues, because you're demonstrating an unwillingness to listen and converse rather than preach.

You agreed with Dimir's post here:It is a scientifically proven fact that water - consumed in large quantities - can be fatal.

So. Taking your statement above, I would ask you this: 'If we can't drink water in large quantities, than what good is it in moderation?'

I have been drinking over 2 quarts of water for over the past decade. Water is fatal, when consumed in very large quantities, over a short expansion of time. It starts to leak into your lungs, and you suffocate.

If you can smoke a cigarette a day, for the next 30+ years. Than what's the difference?

As long as you agree that it also applies to the research, hypothetical opinions and theories that you've posted - and that you actually allow all of us engaging in the conversation to make that choice for ourselves rather than trying to convince everyone in the thread that our point of view is incorrect simply because it's different than yours.

If you're coming to this thread, looking to spout your opinions, and theories. Than you're looking to push those opinions on myself. Why else would you post on this thread, if not to spread your opinions in the face of what I see to be justifiably true? Most of these people didn't come here for friendly conversation. This is an argument. They didn't have to come here, and state what they believe to be 'fact.' They come here out of will to convey their opinions, and dispute mine.

I am not looking to push my opinions on you - merely get you to look at the way you are conveying your own. There are people today who believe that the Earth is a flat disc. There are also people today who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. By your own statement, that means that the idea that the Earth is an oblate spheroid that is many millions of years old is no longer a 'fact', but an 'opinion'.

Actually, I have no desire to force my beliefs -any of my beliefs- on you. I posted in this thread to correct you on your willingness to flat out ignore facts. Primarily historical facts since you completely neglected the fact that the Great Depression greatly changed how people ate - not some belief that meat was suddenly bad for them.

Again, you are skewing things to fit what you want to believe. This is a pointless thread for discussion because we cannot discuss anything with you. In your mind you are right, we are wrong and if we dont accept what you say as truth and fact, we are arguing with you.

I hate to say this but a: you're cherry picking your information and b: most of it is wrong.

Meat is crucial to human nutrition. B12 is a critical vitamin that we cannot manufacture in our own body and cannot be found naturally in any plant. It is found, naturally, in meat. So, for as long as we have been homo sapiens, we have been eating meat in some quantity. Nowadays, it can be artificially made but that's part of the big pharma you seem to dislike so much.

Dr. Esselstyn, whom you use almost exclusively to prove your wrong point is an MD, he is not a 'leading biochemist' or a leading anything. He's a surgeon. He is also making his living off of selling his diet via books, speaking engagements, items and so on – so he's got a financial interest in this diet you're peddling for him.

I don't know what your kick is about Japan but the Japanese have always been meat eaters. They eat eggs, fish, an assortment of fowl and so on. They don't eat much milk or cheese because of a minor genetic difference that means they can't digest it well.

The modern Western diet is shitty, it contributes to a lot of suffering and death. That doesn't mean that there's some miracle single cure (like eating no meat) to solve it.

To be honest I'm so flabbergasted by this statement that I had to point it out especially:

A fact is something that is true regardless of what you, me or anyone else believes. Such as, for example, the Earth moves around the Sun. For centuries, humans believed the Sun rotated around the Earth and they had all sorts of charts and graphs and stories that proved it. However the Earth continued to orbit the Sun, regardless of what anyone believed. It is a fact.

Some other facts:*B12 is a critical human nutrient, found only in meat.*Dr. Esseltyn is an MD, not a leading biochemist (the wiki link you use states that, for god's sake!)*The human digestive system is set up to digest both plant and meat – pure herbivores have a very different digestive system than ours, same for obligate carnivores. We can digest almost all animals we can stuff into our mouth, there are a great many plants we can't eat.

I'm glad the diet works for you – though, frankly, one of the side effects seems to be fanaticism. That doesn't make it a universal truth.

How can you state any of these things as fact, without any factual evidence to support these claims? Where's the evidence? Have you looked into it, and done your own research? I have. I took a Physiological, and Anatomy class. I've taken biology. I'm an avid of reader of the sciences, and history, and culture. I've done research. I've looked at graph charts, and historical displacements in healthcare, and conditioning. Nothing that you say can be factually grounded by any research, and observation. I've posted nearly a dozen videos backing up my claims of a diet for sustaining the human condition. Without anything to back up what you are saying, how do I know that you're not lying?

If someone see's a ghost, and they tell you about it. And you come and tell me about it. How am I suppose to believe you? Where is the evidence? There's no facts backing anything that you're talking about. They're just a bunch of opinions. He-said, she-said, butterfly affect topic. Anything with controversial meaning in it's description, is just an opinion. You can't name it a fact, just because you, and or anyone else says it is. Including myself.

Are you serious about the Japanese not being able to process milk, and cheese? Where did you learn this from? Please. Forward me the article. I would love to read it. Because, you know what? I am Japanese. And my parents are Japanese. My family is Japanese. And I have never heard any of them complain about a discomfort while consuming those products. Yes, I have drunk plenty of milk. I have ate plenty of cheese. I have seen my relatives consume much of both products, without so much as a burp. I have Japanese friends! Who also consume plenty of dairy products. Personal experience, from something that you found on Internet is quite the contrast.

I heard about a man who thought he created the cure for heart-disease, by continuing his meat-based, McDonalds diet. He felt so passionately about it, that he died some years later of a heart-attack. Just because you believe in something so blindly, as you stated, does not make it true.

My friend, you may be of Japanese decent, however, your knowledge of Japan itself if rather...shall we say...um...faulty! Okinawa is not the second largest city in Japan, it is the largest island in the Ryukyu Islands that make up the southernmost region of Japan. Osaka is the second largest city in Japan. The population of Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands are noted for being long lived and the largest factor in that has been determined to be genetic with the simplicity of their diet contributing to it. A simple diet is certainly a healthy diet, however, that diet needs to be balanced and of course fit the individual. Traditional diets in the Japanese Archipelago varied greatly by region and culture and time period. The Jomon Culture did not cultivate rice and their major carbohydrate source were chestnuts, they also were hunters and gathered wild plants. Rice farming was introduced by the Yayoi Culture and that radically changed much of ancient Japan's diet. The Emishi and Ainu ate differently than the Yamato Japanese and the Ainu and Ryukyuan of today have different diets that mainstream Japanese people do. Modern Japanese diets varies by region and has been heavily influenced by other Asian and Western cuisine. However, all of that aside, the rice based traditional Yamato Japanese diet of at least the Edo period that lasted into near modern times was lacking in proteins and fats that led to a smaller population that suffered from various vitamin deficiencies and that is known fact. However, most non-modern staple diets did/do lack certain vitamins and such and is why modern nutritionists talk about a BALANCED diet.Of course vegetarian or vegan is a perfectly valid choice and if it works for someone, more power to em! However, I am a 6'1 (184 CM) 175 pound (80 kilo) man who eats animal protein five meals a day as part of a healthy diet and I do just fine. Is the average modern American diet awful? HELL YES! But it isn't the meat that people consume but the horrible empty calories of sugar and fats in processed foods and bad diet choices of eating way too much of the wrong kinds of food. Anyway, my entering into this conversation was largely to point out that wherever you got it from, you have a very misguided understanding of traditional and modern diets in the Japanese Archipelago.

I'll admit to my mistake of Okinawa. But, sadly. You have not convinced me of anything. I can easily dismiss it as untrue, as you are doing the same. And, actually. You have refined my statements.

Aren't some areas of Japan notorious for seafood? And have been for centuries? You really can't attribute meat alone to the decline in overall world health.

You need to take other factors into consideration: More sedentary lifestyles, more easily available resources such as salt and sugar (both bad for you, both are absolutely adored in Japan). To actively blame meat solely for the health decline is just...wrong. O-o;

Unless it was a migration, they were nomadic in -areas-, or in the Stone Age, sometimes sedentary and collected wild grains, vegetables and meat to survive. they ate what they could get. Meat provides a lot of needed nutrients and is in a fairly easy to get package. In the northernmost regions, the people who would become the Inuit and Eskimo people tended to subside on mainly meat because that is what they could get, and they were pretty bloody healthy. Fat, but healthy. And it worked for them.

Then you will always dismiss -any- claims that you don't agree with. What you seem to be failing to understand is that your argument is fairly confrontational and very dismissive of any claims you personally don't agree with. You see meat, any meat, as bad and harmful. Others here have dropped links that prove otherwise, get you are ignoring it because it doesn't fit your personal believe that meat = bad/unhealthy.

Aahh.. you're still ranting. Not debating or even really discussing when you're ignoring what others are saying and dismissing their evidence as mere opinion, while holding you your opinion as solid scientific fact (If I and others looked, we could find facts just as solid to argue against what your claimaing)There are other scientists, people who are trained biochemists, nutritionists and dieticians, who will say the opposite of what you are saying, and backup their claims WITH facts. Facts you are calling 'opinions' and thereby dismissing. Just because millions of people believe Dr. Esselstynn's research, doesn't necessarily mean that it is right. Other millions believe that eating meat, in moderation is also right and correct. Numbers of believers alone does not make someone right. Is Dr. Esslstynn's work peer reviewed and accepted and passed by the medical journals?

As for the diet, remember, that as Kuroneko said, that what works for you, will not necessarily work for others. Everyone's genetics is different and the same diet will not always work for everyone else. What works for you will not necessarily work for me. I like meat and probably eat too much of it, but I could eat it in moderation (beef, pork, chicken and sometimes fish (I dislike fish, bleh), but it's not going to be anymore healthy for me than a strictly vegan diet).

Pfft. Corn on the cob does the same thing. Passes through relatively undigested, but like the meat, it passes through.

Aahhh. No. we discovered meat a loooong time ago and have been eating it for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. It has never been a recent discovery and we were solely herbivores until just before civilization developed (there are records and findings of humans eating meat back into the last Ice Age. So for 25,000+ years we have been eating meat, as well as grains and vegetables, as a species and it hasn't been harmful to us).

Large cattle, you mean western cattle? Might the drop of Japanese male death also be the introduction of better health care too? You seem very fixed on the Japanese being fully healthy and fit before the west ever opened up the nation.

No one has dropped me any sort of links that dismiss, and even back up their claims of dismissing my statements. No one has provided any factual evidence, links, articles, videos, and so on, of the sort. All of those links, and videos are ones that I have linked. And you're still dismissing anything that I have said. You are no better than I am, I have stated, numerous times, that my opinions are just as that, just opinions. I have never called one of my statements as an actual event, and/or true. I see it the way it is.

Dr. Esselstyn's research is backed, reviewed, and accepted by ex-president Bill Clinton. A man who can receive the best medical healthcare the world can offer. It doesn't get much better than that.

I stated that we discovered fire nearly 50,000 years ago, at the beginning of our current evolutionary state. I stated that sometime after this discovery, we started to consume meat.

You're placing everything I have said out of context, and displacing it.

I meant that during the introduction of large cattle farms, being transported to the country of Japan, the average death-ratio has increased. Wrong word. I apologize for that.

Lord Gilgamesh. He died at the age of 126 sometime between the years 2800, to 2500 BCE.

If we admit that eating too much meat is bad for people, would you please concede that Dr. Esselstyn is not actually a biochemist, much less "the leading biochemist in the world"? Honestly, every time you use that phrase it's making my teeth grate.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's just a matter of accurately citing a man's qualifications. Dr. Esselstyn is an MD. He's not a biochemist. Those are two different things. He's no more a biochemist than he is a NASCAR driver, or a Catholic priest, or a salamander.

When you resist being corrected on the small stuff, it makes it difficult to want to engage with you on the bigger issues, because you're demonstrating an unwillingness to listen and converse rather than preach.

No, I will not concede many of the statements that I have made in any of my arguments. Everyone that I have talked to in this argument has already admitted that eating too much meat is an unhealthy diet. So that statement is useless. And I forebode you to grate your teeth, all that you wish. If you are unable to budge from any of the idealistic that you hold so precious, and dear to you. Than why would I give you the pleasure?

Dr. Esselstyn labels himself as a biochemist, he went to school for it. He studied in the Army to be a surgeon. He studied in college to be an M.D.

I see no one else willing to demonstrate a willingness to listen to anything that I have said, at all? So why are you pushing what you believe to be true, on me? People came to this thread with the willingness to argue, at their own discretion. I did not go out and find them. You, and everyone else came into this thread came to find me. And argue against the ideals that I believe in. Why are you so different?

I am not looking to push my opinions on you - merely get you to look at the way you are conveying your own. There are people today who believe that the Earth is a flat disc. There are also people today who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. By your own statement, that means that the idea that the Earth is an oblate spheroid that is many millions of years old is no longer a 'fact', but an 'opinion'.

The Earth being flat is no longer a controversial concept. We've entered outer space, and looked down on ourselves. We know what the Earth looks like. Just like how we know what we look like to ourselves. I am not going to convince someone that the world is only 6,000 years old, to billions of years old. Because people so-lovingly enjoy what they know, and everything that know about their knowledge. You can't come across as knowledgeable, if the knowledge is unwarranted. I expect them to come here and convey their knowledge, against mine. Or it wouldn't be a controversial topic. And you, and everyone else has came here to dispute against what I know. Or else there would be no other reason to be in this thread.

No, I will not concede many of the statements that I have made in any of my arguments. Everyone that I have talked to in this argument has already admitted that eating too much meat is an unhealthy diet. So that statement is useless. And I forebode you to grate your teeth, all that you wish. If you are unable to budge from any of the idealistic that you hold so precious, and dear to you. Than why would I give you the pleasure?

Dr. Esselstyn labels himself as a biochemist, he went to school for it. He studied in the Army to be a surgeon. He studied in college to be an M.D.

I see no one else willing to demonstrate a willingness to listen to anything that I have said, at all? So why are you pushing what you believe to be true, on me? People came to this thread with the willingness to argue, at their own discretion. I did not go out and find them. You, and everyone else came into this thread came to find me. And argue against the ideals that I believe in. Why are you so different?

Okay. I hear you. And I completely understand if you're feeling a little ganged up on here in this thread. And to be fair about it, you didn't ask for this; you initially posted in a different forum, and it got transferred over here once discussion started.

Please take the following advice as being well-intentioned. You're new to Elliquiy, and I'm guessing that you didn't find this place primarily because you were looking for a discussion about diet. If you're like most folks, you found the site after searching for "adult roleplay" or something similar. This forum (PROC) is just one small part of Elliquiy, and to be perfectly frank it's not the most friendly part. I think by spending your time and energy here you might end up with a skewed picture of what Elliquiy is, which is (generally speaking) a really interesting and mutually supportive community. You're a new member, and I'd hate for you to get an impression of Elliquiy based mostly on the PROC forum.

It's clear and understandable that the current topic is one that you feel very passionately about, and passion is good. But give us at Elliquiy a chance to meet other sides of you, and let us put our best foot forward as well. Which, again, is not really the Politics, Religion and Other Controversies forum. Again, not your fault -- your call kind of got transferred over here. This thread will always be here to come back to.

And if you do decide to follow my advice and prowl around elsewhere, then I'd also like to request that others let the matter drop for a bit until TheChronicles decides to return to the discussion. It's a hard thing to temporarily walk away from a discussion in which you're emotionally invested, so let's be supportive.

Actually, I have no desire to force my beliefs -any of my beliefs- on you. I posted in this thread to correct you on your willingness to flat out ignore facts. Primarily historical facts since you completely neglected the fact that the Great Depression greatly changed how people ate - not some belief that meat was suddenly bad for them.

Again, you are skewing things to fit what you want to believe. This is a pointless thread for discussion because we cannot discuss anything with you. In your mind you are right, we are wrong and if we dont accept what you say as truth and fact, we are arguing with you.

And in your mind I'm wrong, and while you're right. I've stated many times, that most of the things that I have stated are opinionated. But backed by current knowledge.

If you blindly follow someone with the hopes of treats, but never seem to get there. How am I supposed to believe the one that I am following? Not one person has accepted anything that I have said, including yourself. Which makes me wrong. How is that justifiable?

People have been disputing the nutritional facts of meat, for hundreds of years. There are many studies that dispute the properties of meat, for many years. If you look, there are plenty of studies all over the Internet.